ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023
Inferring the decision rules that drive co-foraging affiliations in wild mixed-species parrot groups.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unfamiliarity generates costly aggression in interspecific avian dominance hierarchies.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Can convergence in mixed-species flocks lead to evolutionary divergence? Evidence for and methods to test this hypothesis.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Mixed-species groups and aggregations: shaping ecological and behavioural patterns and processes.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals gathered around a specific location or resource may represent mixed-species aggregations or mixed-species groups. Patterns of individuals choosing to join these groups can provide insight into the information processing underlying these decisions. However, we still have little understanding of how much information these decisions are based upon. We used data on 12 parrot species to test what kind of information each species may use about others to make decisions about which mixed-species aggregations to participate in. We used co-presence and joining patterns with categorization and model fitting methods to test how these species could be making grouping decisions. Species generally used a simpler lower-category method to choose which other individuals to associate with, rather than basing these decisions on species-level information. We also found that the best-fit models for decision-making differed across the 12 species and included different kinds of information. We found that not only does this approach provide a framework to test hypotheses about why individuals join or leave mixed-species aggregations, it also provides insight into what features each parrot could have been using to make their decisions. While not exhaustive, this approach provides a novel examination of the potential features that species could use to make grouping decisions and could provide a link to the perceptive and cognitive abilities of the animals making these minute-by-minute decisions. This article is part of the theme issue 'Mixed-species groups and aggregations: shaping ecological and behavioural patterns and processes'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.